Posted
by
timothy
on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:08AM
from the gradualism-and-quantum-effects dept.

Beetle B. writes "A 22,000-member group for Saudis studying in the US on the social networking website Facebook has been split into two groups, one for women and one for men. The split follows a request from the group's female members who wanted extra privacy. The separate page for Saudi women is a valid decision. We took it to fulfill the wishes of the Saudi women in the US. We have been contacted by a lot of women asking for their private group,' Majed Aleid, media chair of the 'Saudis in the US' group, told Arab News in a letter."

As a german happily living in a democratic and free Germany, I have to disagree. Most more recent "freeing" attempts may have been utter failures, but (proof by example) it is obviously possible to succeed.

Hong Kong is not a democracy by any western standards. Half of the legislature is what we call the "functional constituency", which has a voter base of about 3% of the whole population. A few of those seats are exclusively selected by "corporate votes", no real people voting. For example, the legislator in the "finance" constituency only has to secure votes from a few dozen BANKS to get a seat. (You thought just lobbying by corporations was bad enough?)

The government directly reports to the Central Government of the People's Republic of China, and the head of government in Hong Kong is elected by a small group of about 800 people. Note, you're talking about a city of 7+ million people.

Not that the state of affairs was any better under British rule -- for a long time, the legislature was appointed until it switched to a system similar to that of today, and the Governor of Hong Kong was appointed by the British government.

In short, Hong Kong is not, and was never a democracy.

---

As for Taiwan, I am less familiar with its political history. But I am not aware that there was significant "outside" help. The people in Taiwan wanted democracy, and the then president Lee Teng-Hui gave what they wanted, and now they are pretty proud to be the only place in "China" where democracy is practiced.

Democracy and personal freedoms often go hand in hand, but you don't strictly need one to have the other. There are a few non-democratic countries in the world which, nonetheless, provide a high degree of personal freedoms.

They Germans have been turning a blind eye to the immigration of "lesser' people for sometime. The highly insular societies built up with in Germany are little better than those from the countries they fled. As with many societies, those of us who were born here (I am not from/in Germany - just a Western Country as in the US) tend to think many things are automatic. Instead we what happens is many of these groups get marginalized by government policies that are there to supposedly help them but keep them isolated instead. This opens up opportunity for some in those groups to enforce the old ways.

Simply google Turkish Immigrants Germany and you can find many articles, some very recent on the problems faced by them, especially women. Even over there people turn away from the particularly awful problems while talking up all the good that has been done

I think the point is that there's a difference between making sure someone has their own choices and forcing the choices you think they should make upon them.

In canada a few years back it was ruled that women could go topless (equality thing because it was legal for men to walk round topless.). Women gained the freedom to go topless if they wanted.If on the other hand the court had ruled that women *had* to go topless whether they wanted to or not then would they be more free?of course not.

Similarly there's a difference between making sure women have the choice not to wear a burka and *forcing* them not to wear it.Particularly for older women it can be essentially forcing them to expose parts of their body they consider private.

It might seem like women are repressing themselves, but that's simply not the case.

Women in sexually repressive societies are almost always one of the major vectors of repression.

But here's the thing: a woman telling another woman she must wear a burka is just as repressive as a man telling a woman she must wear a burka.

See, the thing that matters is that the two women involved--and I know this is a difficult concept so please bear with me--ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Only a gibbering idiot would suggest that it's ok to repress someone if they happen to belong to the same socially-constructed abstract category as you.

It would make no more sense to say, "It's ok for women to repress other women" than it would to say, "It's ok for humans to repress other humans." The reification of one particular abstract category does nothing but announce the political agenda of the reifier. It adds nothing but noise to the discourse.

"Do you think women would be asking to wear a burka if it wasn't for pressure from men to wear them?"

Yes. In the conversations I've had with Muslim women in my neighborhood (not to say that we're real good friends or anything, but sometimes I'll be at the coffee shop or something and get to talking with folks), the consensus that I've heard is "It's not about the men, it's about us."

"Right, because at no point in their life were they raised to believe that they should cover themselves."

Yeah, and you were probably raised to believe you should cover your genitals when you go to the grocery store. What are you getting at?

Is it something to the effect of "Muslim women are downtrodden and oppressed drones who can do nothing that a man does not allow?" Because that's a bunch of bullshit. There is a Muslim woman who wears the veil in my neighborhood...and is our city council representative. I don't think her man's telling her to do it.

You're right. People in the West really have deluded themselves into thinking that they don't have an arbitrary culture, it's everyone else that does. Of course you cover your penis, testicles, vagina and anus: that's just natural! Of course only women cover their breasts, unless on a beach in France or on spring break in Mexico - that's reasonable and natural! But that women should have their hair covered - well, that's repression! Oh, and men will need to shave for at least the first 10 to 15 years of their careers if they want to be taken seriously in the corporate world - that's just normal... etc.

In fact, many of the things we take as conventional have "repressive" origins, but we've integrated them into everyday life as simple conventions and habits of basic modesty. That so many people don't understand how this could possibly be the case for Muslims is discouraging.

There are many spheres of life, too, where women do better when they segregate themselves from men. Because of the tendency of boys to monopolize attention and resources in K-8 math and sciences education, girls do much better in those subjects when taught in all-girl environments. Unsurprisingly, then, a disproportionate number of women scientists and engineers went to all-girl schools: the shocker is that there are more women (by percentage) studying engineering in the Arab world than in the US! (Recognizing the reality of discrimination in the job markets in those countries, however: most come to Europe or the US to work.)

Difference being, you are free to leave that denomination and many do. It is apostasy in Islam to leave...and the majority (read almost all) middle eastern countries have that particular infraction punishable by death.

And?the catholic church used to punish/torture people for stupid things as well.The Magdalene laundries weren't all that long ago.

And the catholic chruch simply maintains that you simply cannot leave. (there used to be a formal defection procedure but they removed it because people were using it after the whole international coverup of child rape thing)

Although popularly associated with Ireland, there is nothing distinctly Irish or Roman Catholic about them, indeed a number of the asylums, including the first in Ireland, were founded and run by members of Protestant denominations.

What Christian denomination imposes anything beyond that which is normally covered in our "indecent exposure" laws or a reasonably normal restaurant?

Are you speaking of the Amish or Mennonites? They're stuck in the dark ages just like the Muslims, but at least they aren't violent about it.

Or are you talking about that freakshow cult, the Fundamentalist Mormons?

Pretty much every Western culture requires women to cover their breasts while men can leave theirs bare. I'm not sure of the anthropological history of this particular example, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had Judeo-Christian roots. All cultures have screwy social norms. Most members of that culture can't recognize them.

Pretty much every Western culture requires women to cover their breasts while men can leave theirs bare. I'm not sure of the anthropological history of this particular example, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had Judeo-Christian roots. All cultures have screwy social norms. Most members of that culture can't recognize them.

Yeah seriously, check out what the Chinese [reuters.com] used to do to girls.

If you want REALLY weird, check out the Mormons and their Magic Underwear [exmormon.org]. These freaks also practice "baptism by proxy", wherein they "baptize" dead people using a "stand-in" so that every "family member of a Mormon" gets a "Mormon Baptism"... turns out every few years, some German Mormon nutter gets it into their head to baptize Hitler [mrm.org], then they excommunicate him, then the cycle repeats.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "consumption, storage, and transfusion" of blood is 100% verboten. They won't even pre-donate their own blood if they have to go in for a surgery where there may be extra blood needed.

As for the whole deal about cultures and what they will sexualize... I hereby direct you to Rule 34 [xkcd.com]. Or Rule 34. Or Rule 34 [tvtropes.org]. Rule 34 [google.com]. In other words, Rule 34 [encycloped...matica.com].

From the fact that leaving certain bodily parts uncovered at all times is unhygenic (e.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no service"... and they don't mention shorts/underwear only because someone walking around with that part uncovered would violate indecent exposure law anyways).

From the fact that we'd prefer that most of the population not to expose certain things at certain times (let's face it, some of the people who walk around in spandex... ewww).

And then of course, it's not just "Christian" religions that do this kind of thing. Take a look over at Japan [japanvisitor.com] if you will.

Of course, the Japanese didn't have a hang-up about boobs the way the Xtians do. Then again, when you get to anthropological study, you can determine that a society covers up what it considers "indecent." You were busy attacking christians, when female genital mutilation [who.int] is amazingly common in Muslim society. And there can be NO purpose for the Burkha other than to dehumanize women by making them "unseen" in society.

Or maybe we should be a little clearer [blogspot.com]:
A Burqa is a tool for dehumanizing the wearer. For making it difficult for them to have any individual interaction outside the home. This is not a bug, this is a feature. It depersonalizes women who wear it. It makes it difficult for them to work outside the home, to have a conversation with a stranger or to even be seen as an individual. And again, that is the entire point. Burqas are the product of a culture and religion in which women are not supposed to have any function outside the home. In which they are supposed to remain in Purdah, walled off inside the home.

There are places that one can't go with short-shorts on. And I've definitely been kicked out of restaurants for wearing a tank top.

If you tried to walk into a suit-and-tie restaurant, I'd rather expect that.

Different social situations call for different levels of attire. If a restaurant wants to portray an image of being more upscale, you can bet they're going to have some form of a dress code posted. I doubt it has anything to do with religion.

Last week I was talking to a customer and he explained how he, his wife, his brother-in-law and his wife, had left their southern baptist church because his brother-in-law's wife had the temerity to suggest that she could teach Sunday school - due to having assisted the male teacher, who had since left. It was "suggested" by the church that the brother-in-law should "control his woman"

The Southern Baptist Convention is more like a coalition of somewhat similarly-believing churches. Each member church is wholly autonomous, hires (and sometimes fires) their own pastor, elects their own Board of Deacons (which actually governs the church), and generally does whatever they want in whatever way they see fit. The whole SBC system is basically a federation of democratic republics with a very weak central government, the main purpose being to band together to support missionaries and some colleges, etc.

The Southern Baptist church I grew up in was the exact opposite of what you're describing. Specifically, my mom taught Sunday School for many years. Although we wore the traditional business-casual to business-formal clothes on Sunday morning, any other meetings or services you might go to were "come as you are", and in hot months you could just about guarantee that 90% of kids would be in shorts and t-shirts. The youth groups had summer camps where girls swam in bikinis if they wanted to, we went on ski trips, and one time we went on a national tour to perform a rock musical.

I don't consider myself a Southern Baptist anymore because of doctrinal differences, but they're certainly not collectively the way you describe that one particular church. Now, that church may very well be exactly like that, but that's because its own members choose to be. Other SBC churches would have very little patience with those artificial restrictions, and would in fact see them as ranking piety more importantly than an honest relationship with God.

I believe "property rights" are a mystical notion forming the basis for the religion that is "capitalism".

Just as Marx's theory of Revolution forms the basis for his religion.

In the end, any formally established moral code always ends up with some circular argument. The best you can do is follow your emotional sense of compassion, refine your ability to empathise, and not be a dick in life.

Seriously, fuck christianity, islam and any other primitive superstition, god is a construct of the human mind, invented as a means to explain the world around him. The gods used to be the sun, the fire,the wind, the rain, the summer and winter, the lightning bolt and the thunder, now the gods are just an excuse to cleave someone's head in two.

Culture determines what many consider freedoms let alone quality of life. What we may see as repressive others may see as comforting and safe. I am quite sure there are many rules in the good old U.S. of A. that are repressive to others in the world if not those who live here.

Culture determines what many consider freedoms let alone quality of life. What we may see as repressive others may see as comforting and safe. I am quite sure there are many rules in the good old U.S. of A. that are repressive to others in the world if not those who live here.

Absolutely.

Many cultures are backwards in their own way. But, the Saudi people and every other patriarchal society are stuck in the Bronze age. The Saudis are one of the most backwards and repressive societies on Earth.

Yup. How many people in the US would be comfortable on a nude beach? Or even a topless beach? The fact that our broadcast TV standards can produce a half-million-dollar fine for a nipple while allowing gratuitous carnage to be shown is considered very strange to a lot of the rest of the West - much of it enthusiastically supported by our fairly conservative religious culture.

The French government identified a problem a few years ago: Too much STD transmission was going on, because people weren't using condoms enough. To help address this problem, the government sponsored a series of 5 short pornographic films (10 minutes or so), that prominently featured condom usage. These were shown repeatedly late at night in 1998 on broadcast television.

Can you imagine the public backlash against the US Government trying that?

In most of the rest of the world you can wander around outside with a Beer in your hand. In many places in the US, that will get you arrested. Here in Cambridge, bars have to close at 2AM, and liquor stores have to close at 12. Heck, here in Cambridge you have to be *Licensed* to sing on the street for coins. In Mexico, if you want to throw a dance party you go ahead and throw a dance party. In the US, there are all sorts of rules and regulations around gatherings above 8 people with public music, etc. In Mexico, if you want to fill a truck with 20 people, you install some grab ropes on the back of your truck, and you fill it with 20 people. In the US, you'd get arrested on sight.

Heck Jay Walking is still a punishable offence in most of the US. Building and selling your own toys is illegal (you need an expensive Lead test). Adult toys are still by and large illegal. Go to the rest of the world, and you'll see that while we do have a good amount of freedom in this country, every other country has certain ways in which they are more free than us.

Been there, done that back in my 20s. It's weird for maybe 15 minutes, but then it's no big deal. Also, on a nude beach, more than any other place, you really learn how the media has skewed our expectations of what most people look like nude.:-\

ah, come on, "free" really. Isn't freedom what you want to do. How come you imposing your culture's point of view on another culture freedom. No wonder middle east is pissed with west, this exact problem. Stop the higher than thou attitude. Talk about true freedom.

Today's fashion industry has to certain extent objectified women, women are demoralized if they don't look pretty, billions spent on fashion. I can definitely imagine a society not wanting this.

They aren't asking for segregation on facebook. They requested a group for female students (in addition to the main group).

Damnit, stop being so level headed and rational.

This is the evil Mooselims we are talking about.

Because women of other cultures dont form their own groups with other women of similar age and interests to talk about the things that they want to talk about in private. This would never happen in good old western culture.

but I fail to see why I should care about this. It's not like they've been banned from each other's presence, it's just Facebook. Besides that, it's not like they can't be friends... it's just a Facebook Group that's been segregated.

Is this the same Facebook who is traditionally terrible about privacy settings? It is surprising to see they are helping a (probably large) group of their users gain extra privacy. Certainly, an action like this is an isolated incident and doesn't imply that Facebook is turning over a new leaf. Or maybe Facebook is beginning to take privacy more seriously?

At first it appears so, but in Facebook's eyes, they haven't got any more privacy than before. In fact, they have less... Facebook employees can still read the group (at least some of them, I'm sure) and now the group has clearly marked its advertising demographic. This is a major win for Facebook in every regard. Especially if people keep saying Facebook helped these people have more privacy.

Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such, but I'm getting sick of this kind of bullshit. To be clear, I don't think FB did anything wrong here -- they're a business, and they listened to the wishes of their users (didn't say customers, 'cause their customers are the advertisers they sell your personal data to). What I'm sick of is seeing some people fighting and dying for freedom in one part of the world (lookin' at you, Egypt), and others digging themselves deeper into outdated, bullshit traditions and

What is stopping a non Saudi joining either group.. nothingWhat is stopping a non US Saudi Student joining either group.. nothingWhat is stopping a man joining either group.. nothingWhat is stopping a woman joining either group.. nothing

Having a women's group and men's group is fine, but they are deluding themselves thinking that they can do without a mixed group... Girls wanting a place for girl talk happens a lot in all sorts of environments. Many social forums have female only and male only sub-forums. But splitting the bazaar down in the middle with a wall... Nobody is going to be content with that. In fact the whole idea is rather backwards and primitive. And checking ones gender on the internet is a bit tricky, so expect covert mixing. No wall is as attractive to climb over as the one with the opposite gender on the other side...

Its not that hard to create a fake profile on FB. Even a person of the opposite sex than you.

A really neat trick is to put yourself in a relationship with the fake person and then have fake public love conversations to make other females think you are a normal guy. Then fake your alter ego cheating on you and then set your status to single.

Then you'll get sympathy from all the real females...

Not that I know anything about this though....

But seriously, it wouldn't be too hard to fake your gender on FB. Espec

firstly communism is not an 'end' for freedom. its just communal ownership and planning of goods. you, as a citizen, have less say in what to do with your country's resources in a capitalist system than you have in communism.

secondly, no. freedom to end freedom, cannot be a freedom. its a contradiction. then, freedom to prevent ending of freedoms would also be a freedom.

This whole thing smells of situation ethics. Is discrimination on the basis of the right thing to do? Certainly when requests the exclusion of it is okay. However when requests the exclusion of it is clearly evil. Why? To grok that, we have to consider the entire social, political, economic, religious, and cultural heritage with their interwoven sensibilities, sensitivities, and non-sequiturs.

This whole thing smells of situation ethics. Is discrimination on the basis of {gender} the right thing to do? Certainly: when {gender A} requests the exclusion of {gender B} it is okay. However when {gender B} requests the exclusion of {gender A} it is clearly evil. Why? To grok that, we have to consider the entire social, political, economic, religious, and cultural heritage with their interwoven sensibilities, sensitivities, and non-sequiturs.
I call bullsnap.

After a person's basic Maslow-level needs are taken care of, finding a mate and mating are realllly strong drives. These drives are at the core of evolution... every function of every bit of DNA in every sexually reproducing organism is about successful sexual reproduction, indirectly at least.

So, people who seek to control humans.... and evolved systems that benefit from controlling humans... they have this easy as can be way of grabbing humans by the gonads: Claim to define proper and improper inter-gend

Note that the person saying that the women want this is a man. Typical.

For many young Saudi women, an education in the US is their one time of freedom in life. Some years ago, I was chatting with a Saudi woman about to finish Stanford, and she mentioned that she was going to drive across the United States, then fly back to Saudi Arabia from the East Coast. I asked her why the long drive, and she said it was the only time in her life she'd be allowed to do something like that. (In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive.)

I like the red-state solution to this problem. Someone at a Texas company wrote that an Islamic female co-worker was being harassed by an Islamic male employee who just assumed that, since he was male. he had the right to her if he wanted. So the Texan took the woman to a shooting range and taught her how to use a 9mm pistol. "You taught her how to shoot?" the annoying guy said when he found out about this. "Yes, and she's good at it, too". No more problems.

This is about self-segrigation and self-censorship on the intertubes. It may not be the hottest story, but in the wake of the turmoil in the Middle East it's a clear indication that some of that oppression is deep rooted and won't be changing soon. Information wants to be free... well, not everyone wants to be free to embrace it.

Make sure that your Facebook profile and any groups you participate in are wide open for all to see, especially people who may have trouble with the freedoms you are taking advantage of. This isn't the women being forced into their own group, it is them requesting privacy from their male counterparts. This is a step forward, not back. By having their group be private, they are moving away from oppression.

let me tell you what the big deal is, as someone who is living in a muslim majority country - after a certain point, they will start to make demands that others 'respect' their religion properly. which will entail you, as an outsider, sticking with their idea of respect as it is present in their language. you wont criticize anything regarding their religion, wont talk negatively about their prophet, their ways and so on. after a certain point, they will want that their ways be the dominant rule, law. and those not compliant with their ways, should be treated as outsiders, minority, and have 'minority rights' in limited conditions. after a certain point, everyone is demanded to stick by their rules. because, they are divine.

I'm with you, man, I'm more on the Sarkozy side of things -- even if the women see it as liberation, our culture does not, and so we should do everything we can to impede it and assimilate them to our, not superior, but more objectively just ways of doing things.

I just finished transcribing a series of interviews with British Muslim women on this very subject. One was college educated, a doctor; she sees it as an equalizer, the veil and the covering. When women go out, she says, they are judged not on their appearance but solely on their intellect etc. This is why she sees it as liberation. This particular interviewee also happened to be vehemently opposed to the hijab, forced or otherwise, because, she said, there was no directive from Allah to wear such. Hers was

Oh, come on. Next you'll be saying that Christian fundamentalists will want to impose their will on women's reproductive rights, even if they're not Christian, and to start using that as an unofficial litmus test for who could be elected President!

That's why there are "no gays" in Iran, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joked about on a previous US visit. Known homosexuals are either forced to have gender reassignment surgery, or risk jail or execution. It mirrors the way western countries forced gays to undergo chemical castration as recent as 50 years ago (like what happened to Turing), but it's terrible that this kind of thing still happens today.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but segregation is something that is not in keeping with the American spirit, a land where all men (as in the human race, not the gender) are created equal. If you want to segregate yourselves fine, but not in this country.

Yup. And the Girl Guides and Boy Scouts of America are obviously evil fronts to corrupt our youth organized by evil Muslim clerics bent on the destruction of America. And if it wasn't then it must be because of those damn liberal Democrats..

Right, like Mormon law took over Utah, and Amish Law took over Pennsylvania... Oklahomans need to stand guard. While there are plenty of non-secular law encroachments to worry about, I don't think Sharia is in the top ten.

It's completely reasonable that women might want to self-segregate under some circumstances. I can totally see why they might want to form a second, subgroup for the main Saudi's in America page to discuss how the issues are relevant to them specifically. On the other hand, segregating the main page is clearly a religiously influenced decision (whether it was driven by the women themselves or not). OP was trolling, but it's true that the type of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is *extremely* conservative and anti-female, and it's not parroting Fox News to say so. Like Christians, Muslim have a range of practice that are considered "Orthodox"; and just as some versions of Christianity are very sexist, so to are some versions of Islam. Tunisia, for instance, is completely different and very liberal in regard to relations between the sexes.

In short, choice to form a self-segregated group to discuss women's issues is a perfectly reasonable idea. A forced split of all men and women on the main page into separate groups is a symptom of what's wrong with Saudi Arabia from a human rights perspective. Even if the drive to segregate was from the women, you can see how this is a problem based on the reason.

There are a significant number of girls who do not yet feel confident enough to share their points of view and opinions in the same domain as men. In my opinion they need some time to adjust

In other words, these women have been beat down enough that they literally can't respond to a man in a disagreeable manner. So they want to segregate, as "training wheels". However since th whole site is segregated, I fail to see what they can do after they've "adjusted" to practice their new found confidence.

Please unplug the fox news feed from your cerebral cortex, often its the women that want segregation. I know, I know, you can't fathom why the women would ever want to have a social life of their own without god's gift to women, i.e. men.

On the contrary, I think we all can fully understand why Middle East Women would like to keep Middle East Men away from them.

A gender-neutral toilet, also known as a unisex toilet or a gender-free toilet, is a public restroom or toilet that is available for use by either the male or female gender, and includes family restrooms.

Sex-separated public toilets are a source of difficulty for some people. For example, people with children of the opposite sex must choose between bringing the child into a toilet not designated for the child's gender, or entering a toilet not designated for one's own. Men caring for babies often find that only the women's washroom has been fitted with a change table. People with disabilities who need assistance to use the restroom have an additional problem if their helper is the opposite sex.

Some public places (such as facilities targeted to the transgender or LGBT communities, and a few universities and offices) provide individual washrooms that are not gender-specified, specifically in order to respond to the concerns of gender-variant people; but this remains very rare and often controversial.[1] Various courts have ruled on whether transgender people have the right to use the washroom of their gender of identification.[2]Gender neutral toilets at Gothenburg University, Sweden.

Transgender advocacy groups in the United States have taken up the cause of unisex toilets. They see unisex toilets as a solution to eliminate harassment and other inconveniences for trans people in using conventional toilets. In 2005 there were 5 American cities, including San Francisco and New York, with regulations for public restroom access based on person's perceived gender identity rather than their birth sex.

A significant number of facilities have additional gender-neutral public toilets for a different reason — they are marked not for being for females or males, but as being accessible to persons with disabilities, and are adequately equipped to allow a person using a wheelchair and/or with mobility concerns to use them. Some buildings have restrooms with a single toilet each, and these could be redesignated as gender-neutral without requiring people of different genders to share them at the same time.

There are several ways to add gender neutral toilets to existing restroom provision without building new toilet blocks. One is to simply designate disabled toilets as gender neutral, as disabled users of both genders use them anyway. Under this model, University of Bradford Union became the first university student union in the United Kingdom to institute gender neutral toilets in 2008 after campaigning by the student union's welfare officer. Another option is to make all toilets unisex, regardless of previous designation. Sussex University has been trialling this. Several other universities have instituted gender neutral toilets after campaigning by union LGBT groups, most notably Manchester University, who faced an international media furor in September 2008 after they designated one set of their four toilets as gender neutral. The BBC mistakenly reported that the entire union had been made gender neutral against the wishes of the student population, and several other media outlets picked up the story. Media coverage spread as far as India and Brazil, but also spurred other student groups to press for gender neutral toilets in their own unions.[citation needed]

On Tuesday 27 October 2009, Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) appeared on the front page of The Student after having decided that week to introduce gender neutral toilets. This was done at the joint request of EUSA's Welfare Committee and LGBT Action Group. Again, EUSA did not spend any money on building new toilet blocks, but simply located a facility within the union building which only contained one toilet and designated this a gender neutral toilet. A sign was changed from reading, 'Gents' to one simply reading, 'toilet', a move which Kate Harris, EUSA's LGBT Action Group convener said she would like to see implemented in the future across all union buildings and all campuses.[4][dead link]

From Thursday February 4 to Sunday February 7, 2010, The University of Victoria Student Society (UVSS) temporarily designated all bathrooms in their student union building as gender neutral. This was done to accommodate delegates of the Canadian Universities conference Queer Services (CUQSC). The changes included previously single sex multi-stalled bathrooms. Signs reading 'Gender Neutral Washroom Everyone welcome to use!' were posted over previous male and female designations on the doors to the bathrooms.[5]